Category: media lobbying

Outside DoJ Expert Litvak on Why Google/Yahoo Deal was Opposed: “Google had a monopoly”

From American Lawyer Daily’s interview with Sandy Litvak (the outside expert DoJ asked to review the now scuttled Google/Yahoo search ad combine). Excerpt: “Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. called off their joint advertising agreement just three hours before the Department of Justice planned to file antitrust charges to block the pact, according to the lawyer who would have been lead counsel for the government. Sanford “Sandy” Litvack left Hogan & Hartson in September to consult for the department’s antitrust division on a possible court challenge to the Web giants’ agreement. The companies abandoned the deal in November after the Justice Department informed them it would seek to block the deal. “We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,” says Litvack, who rejoins Hogan & Hartson today. “We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.”…The never-filed government complaint would have charged that the agreement violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Litvack tells the Am Law Daily in one of his first interviews since the companies canned the venture. Section 1 bans agreements that restrain trade unreasonably. Section 2 makes it unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade.

“It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly,” Litvack says.


source: Hogan’s Litvack Discusses Google/Yahoo. Nat Raymond. TheAmLaw Daily. Dec. 2, 2008

AT&T and a leader of its funded Privacy Forum Raises Questions About the Need for Safeguards

Those busy data collection bees at AT&T–including its funded Future of Privacy Forum co-head–appear to be working to undermine the growing movement supporting consumer privacy protection. According to a news report, a meeting was held last week at the University of Oklahoma on privacy issues. Forum co-director Christopher Wolf, whose law firm represents AT&T, is reported as placing behavioral targeting in a favorable light. Instead of calling for legislation, Wolf suggested that companies should create videos and other technical approaches to serve as supplemental privacy policies.

Also speaking at the event was Keith Epstein, “AT&T’s chief public policy and regulatory compliance counsel.” Here are the last two grafs of the story: There is no legislation pending in Washington regarding online privacy, Epstein said. A legislative solution if it did exist, he said, would be inflexible.

Epstein favored guidelines instead, and said the FTC should be issuing industry standards by the fall of next year.

AT&T’s stance on privacy legislation to protect U.S. consumers is troubling. It will have its deep-packet inspection, all-seeing ISP broadband clout, to monitor and then target each subscriber. AT&T should make it clear it supports legislation which provides real consumer protection (opt-in, transparency, control, extra protections on health, financial and youth data). Where is the privacy leadership at AT&T?

Google’s “Policy Fellowships”–Self-Serving Efforts to Help Ward Off Privacy and Online Marketing Protections?

Google has selected 15 organizations for its 2009 “Google Policy Fellowship.” Fellows are funded by Google and will work on “Internet and technology policy” issues over the summer. Take a look at some of the groups it selected and what they say the projects will be (and their positions on Internet issues). And then ask–is Google working to help undermine the public interest in communications policy? Think online privacy and interactive marketing as you read these following excerpts from a number of these groups:

“The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace…Electronic privacy: CEI seeks to reframe the online privacy debate in terms of the potential benefits to consumers of greater information sharing, transparency, and marketing. Fellows will explore competing privacy policies and how they are evolving as the public grows more aware of privacy risks. This research will also encompass privacy-enhancing technologies that empower consumers to safeguard personal data on an individualized basis.”

“The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy… Online Advertising & Privacy Policy Issues: PFF defends online advertising as the lifeblood of online content and services, particularly for the “long tail,” and emphasizes a layered approach to privacy protection, including technological self-help, user education, industry self-regulation, and enforcement of existing laws, as a less restrictive—and generally more effective—alternative to increased regulation.”

“The Technology Policy Institute is a think tank that focuses on the economics of innovation, technological change, and related regulation in the United States and around the world… Privacy and data security: benefits and costs to consumers of online information flows, and the effects of alternative privacy policies on consumers and the development of the Internet.”

“The Cato Institute’s research on telecommunications and information policy advances the Institute’s vision of free minds and free markets within the information policy, information technology, and telecommunications sectors of the American economy…Information Policy: Examining how increased data sensing, storage, transfer, processing, and use affect human values like privacy, fairness and Due Process, personal security, and seclusion. Articulating complex technological, social, and legal issues in ordinary language. Promoting the policies that protect these human values consistent with a free society and maximal human liberty.”

Google is also funding fellowships at other groups, including the partially Google funded Center for Democracy and Technology. The CDT connected Internet Education Foundation (which helps run the Congressional Internet Caucus, where Google is a corporate Advisory member) also will house a Google Fellow. There are a few public interest groups hosting Fellows that have an independent track record, including Media Access Project, EFF, and Public Knowledge. But awarding Fellowships to groups which will help it fight off responsible privacy and online marketing safeguards provides another insight into Google’s own political agenda.

Two years after CDD & USPIRG warn about online advertising & media consolidation, a call to “monitor the state of competition”

Yesterday, Sen. Herb Kohl, the chair of the Senate Antitrust Committee, sent a letter to the Department of Justice about the proposed Google/Yahoo alliance. Two years ago next month, in its initial complaint filed at the Federal Trade Commission calling for an investigation into behavioral online ad targeting, CDD and USPIRG also petitioned the agency to open up an antitrust investigation. It was clear two years ago–as one surveyed the dizzying global shopping spree by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Time Warner/AOL–that a tiny handful would soon dominate the online ad market. Given that online ad revenues are the key to the funding of almost all interactive and online content, we were disturbed by the trend then towards consolidation. Of course, fewer companies controlling all that consumer data also raised fundamental privacy concerns.

Two years later, of course, we have even fewer independent companies left standing. Google swallowed DoubleClick (and is poised to partially operate Yahoo); Yahoo acquired Blue Lithium and Right Media; Microsoft acquired giant aQuantive; Time Warner bought Tacoda and Third Screen Media. Etc.

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have been asleep at the digital switch. They have failed to both protect competition and privacy. However, there is a growing awareness that there are serious problems looming. As we know, the same deregulatory philosophy which helped wreck our economy is also the foundation for communications and media policy. It is accompanied, of course, by a `golden’ revolving door between government and private industry that has left consumers and citizens vulnerable to a wholesale set of unfair practices. Addressing these issues will be the focus of much work over the next several years.

The Financial Meltdown & Media Deregulation Connection

Much of journalism has a `deer-caught-in-the-headlights’ quality as it reports on the current fiscal crisis. Why was this issue off the radar screen for so many reporters and producers? Part of it is that the very system that underlies professional reporting is connected (and funded) by the very forces that have helped wreck the economy. But over the last ten years, journalism in the U.S. has undergone a further serious deterioration, with its ranks thinned. Investigative reporting is on the endangered professions list (with investment bankers perhaps now joining that list as well).

Media consolidation has helped play a role here, further contributing to a news culture where reporters and their parent news organizations really don’t spend time examining beneath the surface of events. All the media mergers we have witnessed since the 1996 Telecom Act has decimated newsrooms, slashed news budgets, and has left journalism on life support (at best).

Just as the Congress failed to engage in meaningful oversight of the financial markets–and spurred the crisis along through deregulation– so too have they largely failed to address the impact of what’s called media deregulation (which meant eliminating rules designed to benefit both the public and press with policies that favored their largely giant corporate owners). As we write in Digital Destiny, Republican and Democrats have long been captured by the influence-wielding (and job promising and donation giving) Big Media “well-connected.” We blame the current deep crisis that has undermined the country’s system of reporting and journalism on the failure of policymakers to ensure meaningful diversity of ownership, public service rules, and new proactive policies which would have addressed this critical problem.

Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s key congressional patron was Sen. John McCain. Powell’s enthusiastic and uncritical embrace of a deregulatory philosophy during his recent tenure at the helm of that oversight agency helped spur media mergers, journalism lay-offs and other editorial cutbacks. Powell is currently a “technology adviser” for the McCain campaign.  For those of you who are interested in learning more about Mr. Powell and Senator McCain, it’s covered in Digital Destiny (New Press, 2007).

We don’t want to suggest our column is intended to be partisan. Many people know we have been equally critical for the failure of William Kennard, Mr. Powell’s predecessor during the Clinton era, to respond to the call by consumer groups to implement open access for broadband (now known as network neutrality). Mr. Kennard is one of Senator Obama’s major donors. We were also critical of Reed Hundt, Mr. Kennard’s predecessor. Both Pres. Clinton and Al Gore hailed the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act. Frankly, we have concerns about the fate of public interest media and telecommunications policies regardless of who wins the election. But it’s important, in our view, to recall history–including the recent events involving former FCC chairman Michael Powell. How both candidates would fix the mess with our communications system–including ensuring meaningful content and ownership diversity for digital media–should be part of the national debate.

We should realize by now that deregulation of the financial markets contributed to a culture of greed that bought down—at taxpayers expense–an economic house of cards. Fixing our system of journalism for the digital era must be on the policy agenda [we need legions of investigative reporters asap].

Google Policy Blog Fails to Address Yahoo! Deal & Threat to Competition & Privacy

Google’s post today by Tim Armstrong on why its proposed deal with Yahoo! isn’t a competition problem attempts to weave and spin this critical issue. It’s very revealing as well about Google’s own failure to develop into a company which honestly engages in self-examination and reflection. As one can see from the current melt-down of the financial markets, making money shouldn’t be the sole motivation for behavior. Google should have been able to acknowledge that a major deal with its leading search competitor raises serious questions worthy of broad debate and critical analysis.

The failure of Google to respond to the concerns raised by the World Association of Newspapers this week is reflective of this. Newspapers and content publishers are rightly worried about ensuring a diversity of funding sources for the production of news and other information necessary for a democratic society. It’s not as simple as Google’s Tim Armstrong (who wrote today’s post) suggests, that this deal with give consumers “relevant ads” and help keep Yahoo afloat as a robust competitor. In fact, Armstrong and Google, we believe, aren’t being candid here. When an online ad company dismantles (or turns over) a core part of its search function to its leading competitor, it becomes fatally wounded. As Google knows all well, search and display (and online content) are all intertwined. Yahoo’s future, in my opinion, as a full service online ad company is endangered, as more businesses realize that its search ad business relies increasingly on Google.

There are many troubling privacy issues with this deal, something Mr. Armstrong tries to dismiss by saying that [our emphasis]: “[W]e have taken steps in the Yahoo! agreement to make sure that neither company has access to personally identifiable user information from the other company.” But that leaves open an array of personal data collection points, such as cookies, IP addresses, and other statistical analysis online related data. (The failure, by the way, for the privacy issues of the proposed deal to be investigated by the FTC and Congress, is also disturbing).

Mr. Armstrong is Google’s “President, Advertising and Commerce, North America.” He directs their online ad sales. In responding to concerns about competition in the online advertising market–given its links to broader societal concerns–more than just assurances from the sales department is required.

The IAB (US) “mobilizes” to Fight Against Consumer Protections for Online Media

Watch this online video of Randall Rothenberg speaking before a June Federated Media Publishing event. In Mr. Rothenberg’s worldview, demon critics of advertising (such as myself) are deliberately trying to undermine democratic digital media. This would be absurd, if it wasn’t so sad. Mr. Rothenberg is using scare tactics to whip up his members into a frenzy-all so they can fight off laws and regulations designed to provide consumers real control over their data and information. Luckily, Mr. Rothenberg will be on the losing side of this battle to protect consumers in the digital era. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic understand how the digital marketing ecosystem raises serious concerns about privacy and consumer welfare. We have to say we are disappointed in John Battelle, the CEO of Federated (who wrote a very good book entitled The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture). Mr. Battelle should know that the online marketing system requires a series of safeguards which protects citizens and consumers. There is a balance to be struck here. Online advertisers have unleashed some of the most powerful tools designed to track, analyze, and target individuals–whether on social networks, or watching broadband video, or using mobile devices. We have never said there shouldn’t be advertising. We understand the important role it must play, including for the underwriting of online content. But the online ad system should not be designed and controlled solely by ad networks, online publishers, trade groups and online ad lobbying groups. It must be structured in a way which promotes as much freedom for individuals.

Why did Yahoo Tell SEC in 2007 that Google was biggest competitor, but now–with proposed new deal–it becomes its partner?

In its most recent 2007 SEC 10K, Yahoo listed Google as its primary competitor: “We face significant competition from large-scale Internet content, product and service aggregators, principally Google, Microsoft and AOL…. Google’s Internet search service directly competes with us for Affiliate and advertiser arrangements, both of which are key to our business and operating results.” But now, with this proposed arrangement, Yahoo’s former principal competitor is its partner. The same 2007 SEC report submitted by Yahoo also cited the development of its “Panama” search ad system as one of its major accomplishments.

When the Senate raises questions this week on the deal, it should ask Yahoo how it could tell the SEC and investors one thing–and then quickly reverse itself.

source: Yahoo Form 10K. Filed February 27, 2008. Available at: http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/sec.cfm?DocType=Annual

Google/Yahoo deal and its impact on newspapers

One of the issues the Center for Digital Democracy has asked the Department of Justice to investigate is the impact of the proposed deal between Google and Yahoo and its impact on the already endangered newspaper business. Both Yahoo and Google provide online search ads or related services for the majority of the country’s newspapers. Analyzing how the pairing of Yahoo and Google may affect payments to newspaper publishers, and whether there may be the potential loss of competition, is necessary. Given the current financial pressure on newspapers, CDD urged ‘DoJ to examine the deal to address whether it will contribute to a loss in revenues necessary to ensure Americans have access to print-oriented news resources.” (It’s also interesting to note that Yahoo was reported in the trade press in February 2008 as seeing the potential of its newspaper ad platform to even compete with DoubleClick–which at the time was already acquired by Google

Google/Yahoo! Combine also raises questions about Publicis and WPP deals

Officials need to examine the recent deals made both by Google and Yahoo! with advertising agency powerhouses, Publicis and WPP, respectfully. The Google/Yahoo! combine reduces competition in the online ad sector, and these agreements need to be part of the analysis. Google and Publicis completed their deal last January “based on a shared vision of how new technologies can be used to improve advertising.” Last month, Yahoo! and WPP formed a “multi-year strategic partnership” that is connected to the online ad trading Right Media Exchange.

Search should not be considered a “natural monopoly,” as some cynics suggest. Nor should search by viewed as separate from display; increasingly the two are intertwined. Marketers desire cross-platform strategies. Perhaps that’s one reason Google is hiring cross-platform ad specialists. To quote from a Google job posting: “The Cross Platform Solutions team forms partnerships with advertisers and agencies to build brands online. We strive to deliver the most efficient and effective digital platform upon which the world’s leading brands are built. We connect advertiser’s brand messages to their target audience through innovative, precise and accountable online marketing solutions whose reach can extend around the world.”

It’s hard to keep up with the online ad world, so it’s not surprising that regulators have been slow to address the critical consumer and competition issues. But much is at stake in how diverse and consumer-friendly the new media world will become. That’s why the DoJ and the Hill need to look at these ad agency deals, among other issues we will discuss soon.  Btw, privacy is a serious issue in the deal, no matter how Yahoo! may be spinning it.